Repossession of homes: what's the big deal?

20Cent · 05-07-2013 10:50AM

If enough mortgages don't get paid we'll be bailing out the banks again thats a big deal.
Maybe do something proactive for once to stop a bigger more expensive problem down the road would be the smart thing to do but won't be holding my breath.

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 11:18AM

floggg wrote: »

How we my facts wrong. I said there's no security in the case of a sale.

Do you think that of you rent a property the owner should never be allowed sell it and has to hold on to it for as long as you feel like staying, even if he needs the sale proceeds for his own personal Financial needs?

It works exactly that way in europe.

tenants can get an unlimited tennancy

jr22 · 05-07-2013 11:20AM

My name is Mud wrote: »

I didnt get burned by the bubble. Im being thrown out of my rented house because the landlord got burned.

So in all you smugness about being a renter, I am also a renter, and have no security of tenancy. Thats my point.

Boo hoo. I moved from one rented house to another in March because the landlord wanted to renovate and sell.

I found another house that we liked nearby, rented a van from Hertz and moved into the new house having lifted every fecking stick of furniture and box on my own. The floors were a bit hard so we bought plenty of foam tiles for the little fella. It was a pain in the arse at the time but not the end of the world FFS.

Security of tenancy is a myth really. Plan around that.

I value flexibility over 3D tellies, iPads the latest smart phones and all the other sh!te I see in all over the shop in Ireland. If you want to have flexibility, live within your means and don't buy loads of stuff you can't afford. Use a pay as you go phone, get rid of your car, stop drinking. Look after your kids if you can't afford childcare, or maybe jizz outside your wife once in a while if you can't afford to have them.

Life's too short to be consumed with all this property BS. There's always another option if you take the time to think about what you can do differently.

Don't expect my sympathy for being a plodding, moaning, 'I blame the banks', average Joe with a sh!te pyrite semi-d and a unnecessary people carrier. Get over yourselves, you signed the bloody contract with the bank.

Frank Black · 05-07-2013 11:29AM

jr22 wrote: »

Look after your kids if you can't afford childcare, or maybe jizz outside your wife once in a while if you can't afford to have them.

You could also use a condom, allowing you to continue jizzing inside your wife while still having a very good chance of preventing a resulting pregnacy.
That's what I do, and she loves it (both the jizzing and the non-resulting pregnacy aspects)

jr22 · 05-07-2013 11:32AM

Frank Black wrote: »

You could also use a condom, allowing you to continue jizzing inside your wife while still having a very good chance of preventing a resulting pregnacy.

I endorse this statement and have resorted to this practice on occasion. :pac:

Pumpkinseeds · 05-07-2013 11:35AM

I thought that the behaviour of those protestors yesterday was disgraceful and must have been very intimidating to the staff. Storming in to the building shouting is pointless. They halted the auction yesterday but ultimately achieved nothing in the longer time. The sheer bloody arrogance of developers ranting that they are responsible for 'creating wealth' in this country and therefore shouldn't have their property sold off is disgusting. Where is this wealth they created?

Some peope never learn.

joe316 · 05-07-2013 11:35AM

Have to agree with repossessions as its the only way of having a proper functioning banking system, and in my opinion (not someone with an economics degree). And also so I am completely frank, didnt buy a house during the boom was in college.

The banks needed to be bailed out, no questions, if not then the whole economy would have gone down the swanny, not just banking. I do genuinely believe AIB would have fallen in a couple of days (worked as a consultant to AIB for a number of years so have spoken to senior people in there informally). The banks dont have cash reserves that last weeks, they have reserves that last days. If there had of been a run on the banks from institutions then we really would have collapsed. All it would have taken would it have been for either AIB or BOI to fall and the rest would have fallen so I genuinely believe that is a none issue and it just had to happen for AIB/BOI (saying that anglo and INW were basket cases and probably should have been let fall). I detested seeing the excess in the banks but whats done is done unfortunately, never going to move forward by looking over our shoulders.

But repos have to happen, there has to be some form of end result or else we'll never move on. Its not good enough for people to say that its a family home and that they'll be out on the street (come on its Ireland you'll be better off on the social!). But in my opinion, the following order should be given to repos

- Those who can afford but are having the nice life and just not paying
- The buy to lets who are not performing (as far as I can remember its something like 50k BTLs in the country, say that 5 to 10% arent performing, thats another 5 to 10k homes to come on the market, that would make a big difference)
- Those who are struggling, give them an option to downsize.

Anyhow, as I said im not an expert but its not sustainable to have no repos.

joe316 · 05-07-2013 11:36AM

Frank Black wrote: »

You could also use a condom, allowing you to continue jizzing inside your wife while still having a very good chance of preventing a resulting pregnacy.
That's what I do, and she loves it (both the jizzing and the non-resulting pregnacy aspects)

Jonnys cost money!! Jeez do you think the country is made of money!!

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 11:41AM

jr22 wrote: »

Security of tenancy is a myth really. Plan around that.

...

Life's too short to be consumed with all this property BS. There's always another option if you take the time to think about what you can do differently.

Planning around the lack of security being a tenant, IS BUYING A HOUSE

And then you mention lifes to short to be consumed with buying property.

I give up

20Cent · 05-07-2013 11:46AM

People in negative equity or having mortgage problems didn't necessarily buy gold plated mansions with ipad wallpaper . Its the young couple with the one bed apartment who a few years later want to start a family I feel most sorry for.

jr22 · 05-07-2013 11:55AM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Planning around the lack of security being a tenant, IS BUYING A HOUSE

And then you mention lifes to short to be consumed with buying property.

I give up

Planning around the lack of security of tenancy means being prepared to move if the situation arises, not necessarily buying a house at all.

Life's too short to be putting all this property nonsense on a pedestal as if it is the be all and end all.

I live in a house. It's grand. I don't own it and I'd prefer to go for a stroll with my son in the nice area I live in than have to overpay for a house that I might never actually own in a crappy area.

Before this we lived in mostly one bedroom apartments or occasional house shares. Too many people during the boom bought 3 and 4 bed houses with all the trimmings before they had any intention of having kids or getting married. Dopey.

jr22 · 05-07-2013 11:57AM

20Cent wrote: »

People in negative equity or having mortgage problems didn't necessarily buy gold plated mansions with ipad wallpaper . Its the young couple with the one bed apartment who a few years later want to start a family I feel most sorry for.

That's true, but for the most part they bought the apartment thinking they could turn a profit and upgrade. Seems totally crazy now, but everyone and their granny thought it was the thing to do.

Frank Black · 05-07-2013 11:59AM

joe316 wrote: »

Jonnys cost money!! Jeez do you think the country is made of money!!

Some day those who have brought financial ruin to this country will be held accountable for the misery they have caused, like the unemployment, the emigration and the jizzing outside of people's wives, which we see today in our society.

Potatoeman · 05-07-2013 12:07PM

floggg wrote: »

How we my facts wrong. I said there's no security in the case of a sale.

Do you think that of you rent a property the owner should never be allowed sell it and has to hold on to it for as long as you feel like staying, even if he needs the sale proceeds for his own personal Financial needs?

This attitude explains the Irish approach to renting. To many landlords that are not professionals. The one year standard lease gives very little stability to the tenant.

poldebruin · 05-07-2013 12:17PM

jr22 wrote: »

We're both primary school teachers

I hope you won't be teaching my kids. I feel a bit sorry for the kids you do teach. You sound like a lovely fella.

jr22 wrote: »

from all the sheeple

jr22 wrote: »

with all the flash harry bollox

jr22 wrote: »

I'm SICK to death of the béal bocht whingers

jr22 wrote: »

Tough sh!te.

jr22 wrote: »

So many clowns in this country,

jr22 wrote: »

Ring Liveline with the feckin' sob stories

jr22 wrote: »

and all the other sh!te I see in all over the shop in Ireland.

jr22 wrote: »

or maybe jizz outside your wife once in a while if you can't afford to have them.

jr22 wrote: »

Don't expect my sympathy for being a plodding, moaning, 'I blame the banks', average Joe with a sh!te pyrite semi-d and a unnecessary people carrier

...but did you ever consider that in the vast majority of cases it is families impacted by banks repossessing houses. Not just the people that signed the contracts, but the children as well (not so thinly veiled "think of the children" post) They didn't sign contracts and they will be impacted just as much, if not more than their parents. You may even teach some of them.

The banks are, at the very least, equally responsible for any distressed mortgage. They loaned the money, and should not be fully protected if the loan goes bad. They should be entitled to the house and nothing else, that should be the mortgage paid off, and the families can move on with downsizing or renting or whatever they choose to build a life for themselves.

Frank Black · 05-07-2013 12:27PM

poldebruin wrote: »

The banks are, at the very least, equally responsible for any distressed mortgage. They loaned the money, and should not be fully protected if the loan goes bad. They should be entitled to the house and nothing else, that should be the mortgage paid off, and the families can move on with downsizing or renting or whatever they choose to build a life for themselves.

I'd agree, if the bank secured the loan on the asset and the asset in now worth less than the loan, the bank take the hit when the asset is sold.
Seem's fair as they are supposed to be the 'experts' when it comes to lending (:rolleyes:!).

But there's a sizable body of people who seem to want the debt written off while they continue to hold onto the property. That's what I have a problem with.

floggg · 05-07-2013 12:27PM

poldebruin wrote: »

I hope you won't be teaching my kids. I feel a bit sorry for the kids you do teach. You sound like a lovely fella.

...but did you ever consider that in the vast majority of cases it is families impacted by banks repossessing houses. Not just the people that signed the contracts, but the children as well (not so thinly veiled "think of the children" post) They didn't sign contracts and they will be impacted just as much, if not more than their parents. You may even teach some of them.

The banks are, at the very least, equally responsible for any distressed mortgage. They loaned the money, and should not be fully protected if the loan goes bad. They should be entitled to the house and nothing else, that should be the mortgage paid off, and the families can move on with downsizing or renting or whatever they choose to build a life for themselves.

Then the kids should really have words with their parents.

floggg · 05-07-2013 12:34PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

This attitude explains the Irish approach to renting. To many landlords that are not professionals. The one year standard lease gives very little stability to the tenant.

It gives plenty of stability. And after 6 months it becomes a Part 4 tenancy which can run for up to a 4 year term.

And what do you propose, a professional landlord course?

I'd say the reason we don't have a better property rental industry is because of the fixation on owning property, which meant the main market for rentals were students and young people, who expect it to come furnished.

A landlord isn't going to waste loads of money kitting out a home for people who will leave after a year and probably leave the place in ****e anyway.

kristian12 · 05-07-2013 12:40PM

poldebruin wrote: »

...but did you ever consider that in the vast majority of cases it is families impacted by banks repossessing houses. Not just the people that signed the contracts, but the children as well (not so thinly veiled "think of the children" post) They didn't sign contracts and they will be impacted just as much, if not more than their parents. You may even teach some of them.

The banks are, at the very least, equally responsible for any distressed mortgage. They loaned the money, and should not be fully protected if the loan goes bad. They should be entitled to the house and nothing else, that should be the mortgage paid off, and the families can move on with downsizing or renting or whatever they choose to build a life for themselves.

Its the parents who are responsible for the children and their wellbeing not the banks and outsiders, parents should have thought of all the scenarios when buying the house. I'm a parent and whilst i certainly do feel for the children i fail to see how its my responsility to keep a roof over your childs head when as the parent you fail to do so.

As i said before more council housing is needed and attititudes to it need to change if the country is to move forward and begin to repair itself. We need to stop thinking that the only way forward in life is to buy or own property.

Ray Palmer · 05-07-2013 12:45PM

The who idea of blaming the banks and government duped people is ridiculous. It relies on people being stupid and ill educated. People in trouble range all levels and were not all overspending. Some would have us believe lawyer, doctors, engineers, accountant and other well educated people fell for a con job and didn't understand maths. It is simple unbelievable that that is true. I could believe people of less educated back grounds or aptitude might be duped but we all remember "I don't know what a tracker is " ads. The information was there and promoted.

There was always warnings it could crash and how crazy the market was. Economists saying they don't know when it will happen after getting it wrong several times.

The fallout of the world wide recession has meant a lot of people lost their jobs so unforeseeable to an extent that two bread winners in a household could loose their jobs.
Were these people being greedy?
Was it because their house cost too much they are in trouble?
So these people are suffering through pretty much no fault of their own. Did the bank do something wrong here? I don't see it myself.

Don't see why the bank should take the hit for every mortgage in arrears. The fact is they happened before the boom too so people seem to suggest that the bank.

Some of us did quite well out of the Celtic tiger. Was able to buy a house when wages went up I reduced my mortgage and I have a tracker. Mortgage is less than rent, I upgraded my house so energy bills are less than if renting. The furniture and décor are mine and better quality than a rental.

Rents are going to rise in the long run and my mortgage will be smaller in real terms. The idea of renting and then buying with cash is a little silly, it only works in a market where house prices reduce or stay the same along with rent doing similar. For that to be the case the economy will be in dire trouble so you probably won't be able to afford your rent or mortgage.

jr22 · 05-07-2013 12:50PM

poldebruin wrote: »

I hope you won't be teaching my kids. I feel a bit sorry for the kids you do teach. You sound like a lovely fella.

...but did you ever consider that in the vast majority of cases it is families impacted by banks repossessing houses. Not just the people that signed the contracts, but the children as well (not so thinly veiled "think of the children" post) They didn't sign contracts and they will be impacted just as much, if not more than their parents. You may even teach some of them.

The banks are, at the very least, equally responsible for any distressed mortgage. They loaned the money, and should not be fully protected if the loan goes bad. They should be entitled to the house and nothing else, that should be the mortgage paid off, and the families can move on with downsizing or renting or whatever they choose to build a life for themselves.

I'm living in the UK studying full-time and being paid to do it there Pol, I made my choice to move out while all the lemmings decided to run over the cliff.

Your kids, if I or my wife had the privilege of teaching them, would eventually be able to process logic and reason things out for themselves. It's probably too late to fix you though. Kids make far more sense than most of the adults in Ireland these days.

Do you think the people who borrowed money should stay in their houses and not pay off their mortgages? No repossessions?

I think the houses should be repossessed and put on the market. We should fast forward to the point where house prices are realistic and banks can be straight about how f*cked the situation really is. Only then can things start to move on. Stalling now is not going to fix anything.

Should prudent people not benefit from their prudence or should they just have to subsidise all the sheeple? I live a seriously frugal life and I resent that if I move home I'll be paying for the mistakes of not only banks and politicians, but the moany idiots next door and up the road who can't think for themselves and want to blame everyone but themselves.

floggg · 05-07-2013 01:00PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The who idea of blaming the banks and government duped people is ridiculous. It relies on people being stupid and ill educated. People in trouble range all levels and were not all overspending. Some would have us believe lawyer, doctors, engineers, accountant and other well educated people fell for a con job and didn't understand maths. It is simple unbelievable that that is true. I could believe people of less educated back grounds or aptitude might be duped but we all remember "I don't know what a tracker is " ads. The information was there and promoted.

There was always warnings it could crash and how crazy the market was. Economists saying they don't know when it will happen after getting it wrong several times.

The fallout of the world wide recession has meant a lot of people lost their jobs so unforeseeable to an extent that two bread winners in a household could loose their jobs.
Were these people being greedy?
Was it because their house cost too much they are in trouble?
So these people are suffering through pretty much no fault of their own. Did the bank do something wrong here? I don't see it myself.

Don't see why the bank should take the hit for every mortgage in arrears. The fact is they happened before the boom too so people seem to suggest that the bank.

Some of us did quite well out of the Celtic tiger. Was able to buy a house when wages went up I reduced my mortgage and I have a tracker. Mortgage is less than rent, I upgraded my house so energy bills are less than if renting. The furniture and décor are mine and better quality than a rental.

Rents are going to rise in the long run and my mortgage will be smaller in real terms. The idea of renting and then buying with cash is a little silly, it only works in a market where house prices reduce or stay the same along with rent doing similar. For that to be the case the economy will be in dire trouble so you probably won't be able to afford your rent or mortgage.

Plenty of smart people made mistakes in the boom or bought big. If I was a few years older if probably have fine the same too.

Thing is though, when you commit to buying a house on borrowed money you have to accept that you have the obligation to pay it back. You have to think about the what ifs, and that you will be stuck with that obligation no matter what happens with your job.

So you take a chance that your circumstances won't change and that you'll continue on the same or a better path and be able to afford it.

But that's not guaranteed. As we have seen, things can change for the worse. When it does, you have to accept that your decision which was made in good faith at the time carried a risk, and that unfortunately that risk has materialised.

Potatoeman · 05-07-2013 01:05PM

floggg wrote: »

It gives plenty of stability. And after 6 months it becomes a Part 4 tenancy which can run for up to a 4 year term.

And what do you propose, a professional landlord course?

I'd say the reason we don't have a better property rental industry is because of the fixation on owning property, which meant the main market for rentals were students and young people, who expect it to come furnished.

A landlord isn't going to waste loads of money kitting out a home for people who will leave after a year and probably leave the place in ****e anyway.

One major problem with renting is that the tenant may have to move at the end of the lease. Its this lack of certainty that make it unappealing for long term accomadation. We also have relatively high rental costs compared to mortgages payments. Even now for many they would be better off buying.

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 01:16PM

jr22 wrote: »

Planning around the lack of security of tenancy means being prepared to move if the situation arises, not necessarily buying a house at all.

Life's too short to be putting all this property nonsense on a pedestal as if it is the be all and end all.

I live in a house. It's grand. I don't own it and I'd prefer to go for a stroll with my son in the nice area I live in than have to overpay for a house that I might never actually own in a crappy area.

Before this we lived in mostly one bedroom apartments or occasional house shares. Too many people during the boom bought 3 and 4 bed houses with all the trimmings before they had any intention of having kids or getting married. Dopey.

Wait until your son is in the local school and your landlord sells up, and you realise you are forced to move to a completely different area (and therefore different schools etc) due to the shockingly crap amount of rental properties out there that are suitable for a family

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 01:18PM

floggg wrote: »

It gives plenty of stability. And after 6 months it becomes a Part 4 tenancy which can run for up to a 4 year term.

Unless the landlord sells up, and gives you the boot.

This is very different to the unlimited leases available in germany

jr22 · 05-07-2013 01:30PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Wait until your son is in the local school and your landlord sells up, and you realise you are forced to move to a completely different area (and therefore different schools etc) due to the shockingly crap amount of rental properties out there that are suitable for a family

If that situation did ever arise, my wife teaches in a lovely local school where my son may or may not go. Where we live has feck all to do with it.

Also, I live in the UK now because I actually became allergic to the amount of moany BS that was being spouted at home.

bodice ripper · 05-07-2013 01:33PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Planning around the lack of security being a tenant, IS BUYING A HOUSE

Apparently not.

anncoates · 05-07-2013 01:35PM

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Why can't people who are living in homes that they cannot afford just accept that they have to move to something more affordable? ll.

I think the main issue is that they'll have to continue to pay the mortgage and rent somewhere concurrently which might not be possible if they've fallen behind on their mortgage because of unemployment or whatever.

That's just answering the question. BTW. Not a personal position on debt forgiveness or indeed, who is genuinely in trouble with payments or people that are strategically defaulting as it were.

Personally, I'd always pay my debts and don't really have a big mortgage but the problem with these discussions is that you get lots of widely-thanked moralizing posts that don;t really say an awful lot.

Moralizing about who should or shouldn't have got a big mortgage is very satisfying I'm sure but the fact is that they did - like people in many other countries have and always will - and either way, it's going to cost us all, whether through strain on social housing, welfare, debt write downs, loss of spending in the economy etc - so simply stating a smug pull-your-socks-up mantra is great for getting thanks but won't really address the issue.

Plus a lot of the people in trouble are not your so-called disfranchised types: they represent a sizable, educated electoral bloc with a fair bit of clout to careerist political parties.

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 01:35PM

jr22 wrote: »

If that situation did ever arise, my wife teaches in a lovely local school where my son may or may not go. Where we live has feck all to do with it.

Also, I live in the UK now because I actually became allergic to the amount of moany BS that was being spouted at home.

And what if she didnt teach in a local school? Would you still say that renting is the best thing ever, even if you were forced to move because of receivers selling off assets??

Renting is bull**** IMHO. You never have any security, as the landlord can pull any of the Part4 clauses and turf you out.

Thats why we have a property ownsership "fascination", as there is feck all security for renting a "family" home.

Short term rental crap in Ireland = Bagaintown matresses, damp flats.

I would be happy to kit out a rented house myself, but find me a landlord that is willing to move all the bargaintown crap out of the house and store it. Few and far between

anncoates · 05-07-2013 01:42PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Thats why we have a property ownsership "fascination", n

What always strikes me as funny in the debates about property booms/busts is so many people preaching about home-owners are waiting on houses to be repossessed so they themselves can enter the market. :pac:

Also the boom vultures are almost identical to the bust vultures:

- In 2006, the forums were full of smug proselytizers and If you said a bust was imminent, you'd be slaughtered.

- In 2013, the forums are full of smug fiscal prudence boasters who take outraged offence if anybody speculates about a possible rise in prices.

:pac:

Not that I'm saying prices will rise or even care if they drop or rise as I'm not selling or buying a house.

Repossession of homes: what's the big deal?

Comments